Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KIRANI versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kirani v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 6182 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 17289 (6 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 13

Criminal Misc. Application No. 6182 of 2004

Kirani Vs.  State of U.P.

...........

Hon. V.D. Chaturvedi, J.

This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent power of this court has been filed by petitioner Kirani requesting to pass an order to run concurrently the sentences                                                                                                                                                                         of imprisonment passed in criminal cases No. 555/2002, 556/2002, 513/2002,  514/ 2002, 515/  2002, 516/2002 and 517/2002.

The record reveals that on 4.12.2001 the petitioner  was arrested in Case Crime No.155 of 2001 (Criminal Case No.517 of 2002) by the police of Police Station Kaundhiyara District Allahabad for offence under section 401 I.P.C. After his such arrest,  he came into light in 7 other cases which are being reproduced below:-

(i) Criminal Case No. 554 of 2002 ( Crime No.103 of 2001, Police Station Audyogik Kshetra, Naini District Allahabad under section 457, 380 and 411 I.P.C.

(ii) Criminal Case No. 555 of 2002 (Crime No. 177 of 2001) P.S. Manda, District Allahabad, under sections 457, 380 and 411  IPC.

(iii) Criminal Case No. 556 of 2002 (Crime No. 176 of 2001) P.S. Manda, District Allahabad, under sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC.

(iv) Criminal Case No. 513 of 2002 (Crime No. 149 of 2001) P.S. Kaundhiara, District Allahabad, under sections 380 and 411 I.P.C.

(v) Criminal Case No. 514 of 2002  (Crime No. 150 of 2001) P.S. Kaundhiara, District Allahabad, under sections 457, 380 and  411 IPC.

(vi) Criminal Case No. 515 of 2002 (Crime No. 147 of 2001) P.S. Kaundhiara, District Allahabad, under sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC.

(vii) Criminal Case No. 516 of 2002 ( Crime no. 146 of 2001) P.S. Kaundhiara, District Allahabad, under sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC.

The petitioner Kirani made confessions in all of the 7 cases mentioned above and also in Criminal Case No.  517  of 2002 (stated above). The petitioner is claiming no relief in Case No.554 of 2002 (Crime No.103 of 2001) mentioned above at serial No.1.  The petitioner  was convicted in each of the above mentioned  cases on his  plea of guilty.

     Criminal Case No. 555  of 2002 and Criminal Case No. 556   of 2002 were  pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 and in both of these cases he was convicted and sentenced on 4.1.2003.

Remaining 5 cases (Criminal Case No. 513/2002, 514/02, 515/02, 516/02 and 517/02)  were pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior division) /Judicial Magistrate Court No.9. In these five cases he was convicted and sentenced  on 16.1.2003.

In each of these cases, it was ordered that the sentences awarded for the offences of that  case shall run concurrently. The petitioner was, thus, to suffer the sentence of simple imprisonment of  one year and one month and fine in each case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before his arrest dated 4.12.2001 in Case Crime  No.155 of 2002 (Criminal Case No. 517   of 2001)  there was no criminal history against the petitioner; that it was after his arrest that he was falsely implicated in 7 other cases by the police of Police Station Kaundhiyara , P.S. Manda and P.S.Audyogik Kshetra,  Naini , District Allahabad; that the petitioner was so poor that he could not  engage  any counsel to defend him in these  cases  or to get him bailed out; that it was only due to his  poverty that he could not  engage any counsel and he had to confess in these cases; that he  made confessions expecting that the lenient view would  be taken in awarding sentences; that  unfortunately the petitioner is still languishing in jail from 04.12.2001.  The petitioner's counsel  requested that a lenient view be adopted and the sentences of these  cases  be ordered to run concurrently.

The learned A.G.A. opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner is involved in 8 cases and he should suffer separate sentences in each case.

Section 427 of Cr.P.C. is being reproduced below :-

"427.   Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. (1)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life , such imprisonment or imprisonment for life  shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently  with such previous sentence:

Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the later sentence shall commence immediately.

(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."

The spirit of Section 427 of the Code is that the sentences of imprisonment for a term if awarded in  number of cases, they shall not run concurrently unless an order to that effect is passed by the court concerned.

In the case in hand no court passed any order  that the sentences of imprisonment passed in these cases shall run concurrently with the sentences  of any other case. Hence the petitioner is undergoing the sentences of imprisonment in these cases from 4.12.2001.

The following features of this case are noteworthy and striking too:-

1.That there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any criminal history against him  before his arrest dated 4.12.2001.

2.That the petitioner was made the accused in eight cases within a very short period  after his arrest dated 4.12.2001.

3.That all of these eight cases were triable by Magistrate, yet the petitioner remained in jail from 4.12.2001 till the date of his conviction i.e. 4.1.2003. It was probably because he had no means to  engage any counsel for the  purpose of his  bail.

4.That the petitioner did not contest any of these cases probably for want of fund to engage a counsel.

5.That he made confessions not in one, two or three cases but in all of the eight cases pending against him.

6.That his confessions in eight cases appear to have been made within a particular period ( on or about 4.1.2003 and 16.1.2002). The petitioner was  convicted in these cases not on the basis of evidence against him but on the basis of his confessions.

All of these circumstances have forced me to arrive at the conclusion that it is one of the fittest case wherein an order under section 427 Cr.P.C. in favour of the accused petitioner  deserves to be passed  in the interest of justice.

It is, therefore, expedient in the interest of justice that the sentences awarded  on 04.01.2003 in two cases (Criminal Case No.555 of 2002 and 556 of 2002) by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 be ordered to run concurrently, and in the like way the sentences awarded  on 16.01.2003 by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate of Court No.9 in five cases (Criminal Case No.513/2002, 514/2002, 515/2002, 516/2002 and 517/2002) be further ordered to run concurrently with the sentences of these five cases.

The petition is, therefore,  allowed to the effect that after the expiration of the sentence of imprisonment awarded in case No. 554 of 2002 the sentences of imprisonment awarded in criminal cases No.555 and 556 of 2002 would run concurrently and after the expiration of the sentences of imprisonment in criminal case No. 555/2002 and 556/ 2002, the sentences of imprisonment awarded in criminal case No. 513 to 517 of 2002 shall run concurrently. It is made clear that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine shall not run concurrently.

Certify the judgment to the C.J.M., Allahabad, who shall ensure the compliance of the order. He shall send his compliance report to this Court at the earliest.

Dt.6.10.2006

Sh


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.